Dharmasthala Burial Case: Supreme Court directs Petitioner to Move HC Against Gag Order
Supreme Court declines to list Article 32 plea challenging Bengaluru court's gag order on 390 media houses; asks petitioner to first approach High Court under Article 226;
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the petitioner challenging a sweeping ex parte gag order, restraining nearly 390 media outlets from reporting on the brother of Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade, to first approach the High Court.
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, observed that the petitioner must exhaust the alternate remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution before invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 32.
The petitioner assailed the interim order of a Bengaluru court that directed the takedown of over 9,000 online links and restrained reporting on the issue, in the backdrop of allegations made by a sanitation worker who had earlier claimed to have buried multiple bodies in Dharmasthala.
During the mentioning, the Counsel for the petitioner submitted, “This is against an ex parte gag order issued in just 3 hours, without hearing the affected media. It directs mass takedown of over 9,000 links across platforms. The justification given is that the content is ‘potentially defamatory’ amid a probe by an SIT headed by DIG-rank officers.”
The gag order was reportedly passed in a defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar, Secretary of Sri Manjunathaswamy Temple institutions, who highlighted the spread of allegedly false and defamatory content online, despite there being no specific allegations against him or the temple authorities in any FIR.
The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain the petition at this stage and directed the petitioner to first seek relief before the jurisdictional High Court.
The original ex parte order by the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai had restrained publication or sharing of any allegedly defamatory content against the Heggade family and Dharmasthala institutions. It also issued a mandatory injunction directing removal or de-indexing of 8,842 links.
"The Court cannot ignore the fact that though the reputation of every citizens is very important, when an allegation is made against the institution, and temple, it affects wider range of people including the employees and students who are studying in various colleges and schools. Therefore, even a single false and defamatory publication would seriously affect the functioning of the institutions," the Karnataka Court observed on July 21.
"If the defendants are allowed to make such defamatory statements, the damage likely to be caused to the plaintiff, temple and the institutions cannot be quantified. Even if the suit is decreed or an order of injunction is passed after hearing the defendants, the damage likely to be caused in the interregnum period cannot be compensated in any way," it added.
Mentioning Date: July 23, 2025
Bench: CJI BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi